Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have absolutely no idea what you people are all talking about. The rules are established within our current system. If you don’t like them either change them or wait until it’s your turn in power because the pendulum swings both ways. The core of the problem, and so many others, is that Donald Trump won the presidency four years ago when the entire DC and media establishment KNEW that he didn’t stand a chance. They were all wrong! If they were honest brokers RBG would’ve retired when Obama was still President and the Comey Show would’ve never tried playing around with the election. Too bad! Screw them all....confirm ACB. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have absolutely no idea what you people are all talking about. The rules are established within our current system. If you don’t like them either change them or wait until it’s your turn in power because the pendulum swings both ways. The core of the problem, and so many others, is that Donald Trump won the presidency four years ago when the entire DC and media establishment KNEW that he didn’t stand a chance. They were all wrong! If they were honest brokers RBG would’ve retired when Obama was still President and the Comey Show would’ve never tried playing around with the election. Too bad! Screw them all....confirm ACB. 

 

Exactly. Then when the pendulum swings back Dem as the polls and early voting are pointing to, change the rules by adding a couple more justices.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Exactly. Then when the pendulum swings back Dem as the polls and early voting are pointing to, change the rules by adding a couple more justices.

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

4 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

You guys are idiots... Biden isnt packing the court... could see Trump trying.... Biden is to much of a traditionalist to go down that route..

 

You may be right, but Kamala?

Posted

What is the issue here? Rs are in charge, they can do as they please, within the rules, including changing some rules. If and when the Ds are in charge, they can do as they please, same rules apply. Seems simple to me.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So when the pendulum swings back again add even more. Let's get to 57 justices. 

 

Sure, who knows when that will be. Texas may not go blue this year but the demographics are changing and will be blue soon. A blue Texas would change the electoral college math for a long time.

 

We won't see any changes with governors this year, but as the Dems get more.local control, and judges are starting to fight against racist gerrymandering, we will see fairer districts in states as well.

Posted

She's qualified to sit on the bench.  I am sure I won't agree with some of her decisions, much like I don't agree with some liberal justice opinions, but there's really  no questioning her qualifications.  

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

The Republican Senate claims that the people spoke about what they want for the court when they elected a Republican Senate in 2016 and 2018.  If the democrats take control of the Senate this election, as well as the Executive branch, and also continue to hold the House, would it not be evidence of the people's will in terms of what they want for the judiciary?  I am not a proponent of adding justices to the court, but in our representative democracy the will of the people must be heard just as Mr McConnell and his colleagues have stated.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

She's qualified to sit on the bench.  I am sure I won't agree with some of her decisions, much like I don't agree with some liberal justice opinions, but there's really  no questioning her qualifications.  

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

The Republican Senate claims that the people spoke about what they want for the court when they elected a Republican Senate in 2016 and 2018.  If the democrats take control of the Senate this election, as well as the Executive branch, and also continue to hold the House, would it not be evidence of the people's will in terms of what they want for the judiciary?  I am not a proponent of adding justices to the court, but in our representative democracy the will of the people must be heard just as Mr McConnell and his colleagues have stated.

Excellent comment.

Posted
32 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Regarding the packing stuff, McConnell was ridiculous on what they did with Garland, and two faced with this nomination.  f I were Biden, I would say something to this effect when asked the question:

 

Biden can't say much, because it was HIS suggestion McConnell followed. They were calling it the 'Biden Rule' in 2016 for a reason - it was his brainchild back when he was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted

Keep this in mind people:

 

The American people have their voice in the House of Representatives, the states have their voice in the Senate while the administration executes the laws passed by the House and Senate. The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the laws by Congress and the actions by the Executive branch. Nowhere is the Supreme Court a voice of the people. The people have their voice through their representative and by amending the Constitution.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Sure, who knows when that will be. Texas may not go blue this year but the demographics are changing and will be blue soon. A blue Texas would change the electoral college math for a long time.

 

We won't see any changes with governors this year, but as the Dems get more.local control, and judges are starting to fight against racist gerrymandering, we will see fairer districts in states as well.

 

And when the pendulum does swing back, will court packing be a bad idea again?

Posted
18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Keep this in mind people:

 

The American people have their voice in the House of Representatives, the states have their voice in the Senate while the administration executes the laws passed by the House and Senate. The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the laws by Congress and the actions by the Executive branch. Nowhere is the Supreme Court a voice of the people. The people have their voice through their representative and by amending the Constitution.

Republicans should have kept this in mind with Garland

Posted
Just now, Backintheday544 said:

 

If it's within the rules and represents the voice of Americans, then yes.

 

Not sure I'm following. If Biden wins and pursues court packing you support that, correct? My question is when the pendulum swings back to republican control would you continue to support court packing?

Posted
Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 

Not sure I'm following. If Biden wins and pursues court packing you support that, correct? My question is when the pendulum swings back to republican control would you continue to support court packing?

 

Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time.

Posted
11 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

The Republicans should fill this seat. It's in the Constitution that they can.

 

However, it also was that Garland should have been brought to the Senate. Republicans betrayed that. They're going back on their word now. Lindsey Grahams spine looks worse than Daks foot.

 

I didn't say how the amendment process works, I just said start the process. Give those.700,000 US citizens taxation with representation.

 

10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

As with "court packing," there would be nothing unconstitutional about creating a state out of most of the District of Columbia. The constitution establishes a federal district, which initially included Arlington, Virginia, which was ceded back to the State of Virginia later on. My favored solution to enfranchise DC residents would be to cede much of the District to Maryland. But that won't happen -- it would disrupt political interests within Maryland, and -- let's be honest -- wouldn't accomplish the goal of getting 2 more Democratic senators.

But the plans do not run afoul of the Constitution. It's a political issue, and it will be settled at the ballot box next month.

 

First, I don't buy into the narrative of no representation. DC is most certainly represented by 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators. 30% of their revenue is provided by that Congress as Federal Funds as well. It must even be noted that over half that DC population of 700 thousand are actually there as federal employees and not necessarily native residents.

At the writing of the Constitution, land was carved out of Virginia and Maryland to create the District of Columbia. Since that time, their portion has been given back to Virginia. So if they indeed want their own representation instead of sharing with the 50 states then return that portion the the state of Maryland since it would only be fair.

Posted
1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time.

 

And you don't see any problem with that concept in terms of separation of powers among the branches of government?

Posted
6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Republicans should have kept this in mind with Garland

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

×
×
  • Create New...